This 52 mantle real

[Zach Wheat]

It looks good to me too. One of the things I look for is the paper underneath the first layer of corner wear. This one looks consistent with other '52 paper stock and the printing looks good.

Ask me why I check the worn edges? I got burned once on a nice looking '51 Bowman Mantle. Looked perfect even down to the wax stains on the reverse. Didn't check the paper stock underneath the first layer....

[Volod]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

It looks good to me too. One of the things I look for is the paper underneath the first layer of corner wear. This one looks consistent with other '52 paper stock and the printing looks good.

Ask me why I check the worn edges? I got burned once on a nice looking '51 Bowman Mantle. Looked perfect even down to the wax stains on the reverse. Didn't check the paper stock underneath the first layer....

Zach - Just curious: I assume you mean the grayish colored cardstock under the white overlay that is visible in the corners due to heavy wear? That makes sense, but did the bogus '51 Mantle show something else?

[Zach Wheat]

Originally Posted by Volod

Zach - Just curious: I assume you mean the grayish colored cardstock under the white overlay that is visible in the corners due to heavy wear? That makes sense, but did the bogus '51 Mantle show something else?

Volod, yes.

I think paper stock is one of the harder items to get right when faking a card. Which is why it is important to hold the card you are buying and having an example to compare it to is critical. I think this is even more important when looking at some of the less well known issues in pre-war collecting. The paper stock on issues like the V-61's and T200's - and even the more common T201's - is critical to understanding fakes & reprints.

If you look at the reproduced T201's, they actually look pretty much like the original. However, when you hold and feel the density of the paper stock you immediately know it is a reproduction. There is no way to replicate the delicate, fragile feel of paper made in the 1910's (reproductions are a little heavier with a "stiff" feeling").

Z Wheat

[the 'stache]

Originally Posted by Zach Wheat

It looks good to me too. One of the things I look for is the paper underneath the first layer of corner wear. This one looks consistent with other '52 paper stock and the printing looks good.

Great advice. Checking the stock is soooo important.

One of the first things I started working on when I began collecting vintage cards was to get a control card for each set I was planning on collecting from. I buy a common (a card nobody in their right mind would take the time to fake), preferably with some decent wear around the corners, and one I wouldn't mind cutting into. Because if I'm looking to buy a '52 Mantle, I want to have a card I know is good to compare it to. I'll compare the printing technique under a 10 x loupe. I'll compare the feel/thickness of the card to the one I'm considering buying (you don't have to take it out of whatever screwdown or top loader it's in). And since my common isn't collectible grade, I'll compare the edge I've trimmed on mine to the edges of the more expensive card. If the Mantle (or whatever other card you're looking at, like an Eddie Mathews) has any trimming evidence, it will stand out. It really helps to develop your eye, and eventually, you won't need to carry the common with you.

It's worth the couple of bucks to make sure, at least at first, that you're not spending a few thousand bucks on a well-crafted fake.

But my gut instinct tells me that this is good, at least based on the front.